Meanwhile it is reasonably clear that, for all his obvious intellectual firepower, Dominic Grieve lacks the political clout to shadow a major office of state.
The conclusion ought to be an obvious one for David Cameron: Restore David Davis to the Shadow Home Secretaryship forthwith. Not only would it be right and proper in view of his 42-day triumph, it would also steal some of Brown's thunder in the wake of his astonishing yet still widely-applauded decision to appoint his most implacable political enemy as Business Secretary.
Will Cameron will have the balls to do it? I'm not holding my breath...
9 comments:
His 42-day triumph! You're having a laugh Paul. Please, please, tell me what he did other than make an embarrassing fool over himself with his resignation.
That showed such a lack of judgement (and disloyalty in not consulting with his Party leader first) that he is unlikely to be recalled I would have thought.
Well there we have it. The definitive analysis by Bob Piper. I'm sure David Cameron has been waiting for his steer on what to do next. The fact that Brown and Smith have had to do yet another U-turn and spun it to show that it's the opposition that have a problem.
And yesterday we had the "No more SATs for 14 year-olds" from Ed Balls. It's a complete change of policy.
Not a u-turn, they say. Despite the fact they were being told by the Conservatives that they served no useful purpose.
How many more policy reversals will we see under the fog of the "financial crisis"?
My sincere apologies, Diablo. I was labouring under the misapprehension that the point of a comments section was to write something about what had been posted.
In future, perhaps I should take your lead and just write the first piece of irrelevant nonsense that comes into my head.
Davis is too much of a maverick, Paul. Cameron might offer him a job where he can't do much damage, but as for the big portfolios he's got no chance.
bob piper is spot on. Is DAvid Davis really that self important to think that he made ANY difference with this?
I am truly amazed by his arrogance. I respect his beliefs on the issue, but come on?!
I agree Paul, Davis should be in the shadow cab inet, along with one or two other "big beasts".
It's not going to happen though, Cameron seems happy with his light-weights.
Anonymous is right. What did Davis do exactly that made any difference? 42 days is a crap policy. But there's no shortage of people opposed to it, in all parties and none. The house of lords voted it down as expected and the credit crunch gave the gov't a very handy smokescreen.
Bob Piper said 11.56pm 15th October: "In future, perhaps I should take your [Diablo's] lead and just write the first piece of irrelevant nonsense that comes into my head."
I've only just noticed this and think it's worthy of a response given the sort of tosh that Bob Piper churns out on his very entertaining blog which I hardly ever read.
So Bob, how is my comment: "The fact that Brown and Smith have had to do yet another U-turn and spun it to show that it's the opposition that have a problem" an irrevelance?
I think my comment was making a very valid point related to Paul's post on whether David Davis should be re-installed as Shadow Home Secretary. I was pointing out that your man (and his Home Secretary) were trying to "spin" their "change of mind" while the political narrative is dominated by Brown's financial crisis.
My sincere apologies, Councillor, I was labouring under the misapprehension that you're a Labour politician and so you should understand how the game is played.
After all you did write originally: "His (David Davis's) 42-day triumph! You're having a laugh Paul. Please, please, tell me what he did other than make an embarrassing fool over himself with his resignation."
You might be surprised, Bob, but not everyone agrees with you.
Is it OK to say that I don't agree with you? Am I allowed to do that? I don't want to appear to be saying anything irrelevant.
Post a Comment